Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Britten/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Benjamin Britten[edit]

Benjamin Britten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) and Brianboulton (talk)

Mindful of the approaching centenary of Britten's birth on 22 November, User:Sjones23 set the ball rolling on getting the article to FA standard. For one reason or another I have written most of the new stuff, with a very substantial input from User:Brianboulton who has agreed to co-nominate. Britten the man was prickly and not always the most loyal of friends; his sexual inclinations have aroused hostility and suspicion. But his music is widely regarded as among the most important and durable of the 20th century. Building on the earlier work of several prominent Wikipedians, and with the help of some very thorough peer reviewers, we have, we believe, got the article to a level that does him justice. – Tim riley (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now added to FAC. BencherliteTalk 12:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support had my say at the peer review, concerns answered, congrats on a fine article, no need to hide it by not transcluding! Don't be bashful.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Many thanks for this article. I am not an enthusiast for all of Britten's output, but the article gives a very clear and fair portrait of his life, times and music and how they interacted. (And as I'm presently a long way from England it also stirred home thoughts from abroad, but of course I haven't allowed that to influence me). I am thoroughy satisfied that you have tackled the tricky issues you mention in your introduction here, as well as making clear Britten's unique contributions as both an English composer and his influence on his contemporaries. I am scrabbling for any nits to pick - the only query I can dredge up is about his honours in the lede (OM/CH); I think in other articles (e.g.Edward Elgar) these are in <small>, but I don't know if this is a WP rule or not. Congratulations to all involved; this is I believe an authoritative and balanced centenary contribution.--Smerus (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally convinced myself after venturing into the labyrinth of the MoS that there is no rule either way on this point, or if there is I'm blest if I can find it. Happy to follow majority opinion on this point. Tim riley (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do sometimes find post-noms in small font (and without commas) on WP but as a military history enthusiast who regularly deals with these, I've seen no indication in the real world that they should be anything other than in regular font, and separated by commas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Most of my suggestions in the PR were incorporated. If this was my article it would have a short infobox and references separate from the body, but I respect different style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to Wehwalt, Smerus and Gerda for this support. And to Bencherlite for spotting my idiotic omission and remedying it. Tim riley (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: With the qualification that I am no musical expert (and that my critical faculties are currently scrambled by some rather disturbing events at Nottingham over the weekend), I had my say at the PR where my minor points were answered and I think this article comfortably meets the FA criteria. Excellent work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sarastro. Input from non-specialists is particularly valuable: it can highlight one's cosy assumptions and lazy shorthand. (The next test of your nerves will be within not many yards of a Britten blue plaque in St John's Wood High Street, BTW.) Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed at Peer Review, and I am pleased that the article has improved even further since then. This is a well-written, comprehensive biography, and I support its promotion! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ss, for that. Particularly pleased to have support from outside these islands, from Wehwalt, Gerda and you. A different perspective is of great value, I think. Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - on prose and comprehensiveness. Just minor formatting issues.

  • A dab link which needs addressing.
    • I'd seen that, via the dablink tool, but I don't know what to do about it. I don't think I should remove the hatnote, but equally I don't think I ought to remove Benjamin Britten from the page with the list of Brittens. Suggestions gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mozart is first wikilinked under 'Pianist and conductor', but his name is first mentioned under 'Operas' -- first line of sixth paragraph.
  • Ref 93 and 102 should have their publications italicised.
  • Ref 154 and 198 have some formatting errors.
  • Date for Ref 221 is different to one given in the article. I take it that 2012 is the copyright year?
    • It is – at the bottom right of the linked page. But it would be better to use the date at the top, and I have changed accordingly. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publish date of Ref 235 (the Observer article) is incorrect. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now corrected. Thank you for your support and for your keen-eyed spotting of these errors. You have plainly put in quite a bit of time and effort opening links such as those you mention at ref 221 and 235, for which I am very grateful. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat. I was another happy camper from PR and thought it was excellent then. The subsequent alterations have only improved matters. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I bumped into this last night and was awestruck by its quality and comprehensiveness. I can see no issues whatsoever. -- CassiantoTalk 09:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most grateful for these supportive comments. Thank you to SchroCat and Cassianto. Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add my thanks to Tim's, for the above supports and for prior help during the peer review. I rather feel that I am basking in reflected glory; with 80 percent of the work done by Tim, my contributions have been very modest. I have worked successfully with Tim in the past, and I am more than happy to be associated with this article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Riley and Boulton on the same music bio? There oughta be a law! Seriously, I tweaked a link and punctuation (see also comment above), and would like to see the duplicate links reviewed (some may be justified by the length of the article but pls double-check with Ucucha's script). Other than that, it looks to me like Lemonade has performed a source review so I think we're probably just waiting on an image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, Riley and Boulton working together is surely a threat to the continuity of the space-time continuum and the stability of the universe!Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 07:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat links: this was raised a day or so ago, and I explained our thinking here. I've used the excellent duplicate link checking gizmo and I think we have stuck firmly to those precepts. For the image review I'd knock on User:Ruhrfisch's door, but I can't this time because Ruhrfisch researched and contributed the solo image of Britten and the picture of Pears, for which I am hugely grateful. – Tim riley (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pressed some species of wrong button earlier today (editing wrong version of page, I think) and mucked up various recent changes to the article. Apologies! I think order is now restored. So sorry. Tim riley (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! As far as the dup links go, no issue with that rationale, and as for the image check, I'll just post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing your requested Koala source review, by way of penance. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
File:Benjamin Britten, London Records 1968 publicity photo.png - Any reason this isn't jpg? Jpg displays much better in situ. Copyright is fine.
File:The Scallop, Maggi Hambling, Aldeburgh.jpg - Copyright is fine (FOP allowed in the UK), although a FOP tag would be nice
File:Lowestoft-1903.jpg - Wouldn't {{PD-anon-1923}} apply here (and thus allow it to be on Commons)? Copyright is fine.
File:Frank-bridge-1921.jpg is fine
File:AudenVanVechten1939.jpg is fine
File:Peter-grimes-the-borough-1812.jpg is certainly fine
File:Benjamin Britten memorial window ... - geograph.org.uk - 1131630.jpg is fine, though an FOP template would be nice
File:RIAN archive 25562 Mstislav Rostropovich and Benjamin Britten after a concert.jpg is fine
File:Peter Pears publicity photo 1971 crop.png looks fine, though I again question the png.
Wouldn't the musical arrangement of A Birthday Hansel still be copyrighted (and thus there be issues with the performances included here?)
File:Courbet - Paul Verlaine.jpg not needed for copyright, but a date would be nice
File:Carjat Arthur Rimbaud 1872 n2.jpg should be PD-100
File:William Blake by Thomas Phillips.jpg is fine
File:Wilfred Owen plate from Poems (1920).jpg is fine
File:Igor Stravinsky LOC 32392u.jpg is fine (and quite beautiful)
File:Fotothek df roe-neg 0002792 002 Portrait Dmitri Dmitrijewitsch Schostakowitchs im Publikum der Bachfeier.jpg is fine
File:John-Ireland-1919.jpg - Any author credited?
File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg is fine
  • Mostly good, though some small issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am less than adept, however hard I try, with WP's image rules. The only images I uploaded (I think) were
(i) John Ireland: though the drawing is signed I can't decipher the name, and the source publication doesn't expand; the name looks like Jeremiah Goatbum, and I suspect it may be William Rothenstein, who drew many British musicians around that time, but who knows?; and
(ii) the Illustrated London News 1903 picture of Lowestoft, for which I chose the best template I knew, but am perfectly happy to be overruled by someone who knows what he or she is talking about.
On the copyright of the sound files and the music on them I defer to the judgment of any Wikipedian who knows the rules. It's nice to have a sound file, but this piece is (hush!) not perhaps essential Britten, and if it has to go, then so be it. Ought I to be doing anything about the other images in the light of these comments? – Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Ireland, I'd suggest writing something like "signed but illegible". The UK's laws on anonymous works, assuming due effort at finding the creator bore no fruit, is PD 70 years after publication (which this file quite comfortably fits). I can do the nit-pick taggings, but the music...
From what I understand, there are at least three copyrightable parts of most musical recording: the music (its rhythm, arrangement, etc.; the interactions between strings and percussion, etc.), the lyrics (not a problem for this work by Britten, assuming no substantial changes, but the reason why someone singing "Kiss Me" without any backing would still not be able to upload the file as free), and the performance proper (as there are generally individual takes on things, impromptu additions, and whatnot). These files (I think) fulfill two of the criteria for freeness: the lyrics should be PD, and the person who gave the performance released it under a free license. However, Britten died too recently for the underlying musical structure to be public domain in the US or UK, and the person who gives a performance/makes a recording does not own copyright over the underlying musical structure (and thus cannot give it away). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: You have conflicting dates for A Birthday Hansel (1975/6) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment it may be but is wholly to the point. Thank you, and now fixed. (Written 1975 – at the request of the Queen to celebrate her mother's birthday; premiered – usual dating point – in Jan 1976.) – Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting in a tangle with indentations: please feel free to rearrange ad lib.

  • Ireland: done, and thank you for offering to amend the template
  • Sound files: your comments seem to me to say we should blitz it forthwith. If so, can I ask you to do the deed so far as Benjamin Britten is concerned? Assuming – which I do – that you are right, ought the files to remain uploaded anywhere in the Wiki-empire? Heigh ho! Why is nothing simple? – Tim riley (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the essential point, yes. A couple choice sections of a recording would be nice, but they'd have to be FU. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No prospect of that, at the moment, I fear. Have removed the sound files from this article, and over to you for their continued presence in Wikiland. Tim riley (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have nominated for deletion. Images are satisfactory now. Thank you for responding so quickly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead image - versions

PNG -v- JPG: On my screen the PNG version looks better. The JPG has more black and white contrast, but there is more detail and (if this makes any sense) three-dimensional effect in the PNG. Whichever version we decide on I am exceedingly glad to have it. This is just my two penn'orth and I leave the experts to decide among themselves. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In situ, for me, comparing the the jpg and the png, the png looks much blurrier. At full size there shouldn't be much of a difference (I think)), but flicking between the two in the article makes the blurriness of the png really stick out. I think the only flaw with the jpg is that the highlights in the background show up a bit more, but since you can actually see Britten's eyes I think its a fair trade. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by the Dr.
  • Lead -"establishing himself as one of the leading 20th-century composers in the genre." repetition of 20th century from above, I'd probably say "one of the leading composers of his era in the genre".
    • I think a paragraph break and five sentences is probably enough to make the plain version unexceptionable. Tim riley (talk)
  • "He took a great interest " he displayed a great interest?
    • More usual say "I take an interest" than "I display an interest", surely?
  • "He often composed with particular performers in mind. His most frequent and important muse was his personal and professional partner" The repetition of he and his with the short sentence seems to grate with me a little, can you reword this slightly or merge sentences? I'd probably write it as "His most frequent and important muse was his personal and professional partner, and he often composed with particular performers in mind such as the tenor Peter Pears, Janet Baker, Dennis Brain, Julian Bream, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Mstislav Rostropovich." Improves the flow I think.
    • But leaves us with the same number of hes and hises. The longer sentence goes on a bit, I'd say.
  • "He was responsible for the creation of Snape Maltings concert hall" I'd probably word is as "he was responsible for the establishment of Snape Maltings concert hall in xx. I think a date here would help the reader as to what time period it was that he did this.

Education -

  • "When he was seven" At the age of seven?
    • Either is fine. No obvious advantage in the latter. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The younger sister" The? Misses Astle's sister? Should be "her" if referring to Astle.
    • No – it's "Misses" plural, not some strange singular possessive. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in later life he said that he remained grateful for the excellence of her teaching" In later life he expressed gratitude towards her excellence as a tutor? Just a suggestion.
  • "the young Britten was outraged at the severe corporal punishments frequently handed out", that one raised a chuckle, can't think who that reminds me of hmm... A little confused though as this seems to contradict what you then say "he himself rarely fell foul of Sewell, a mathematician, in which subject Britten was a star pupil."
    • There was a harsh regime at the school. Britten disapproved of it even though he himself was rarely the victim of it. Which is what the sentence says. Can redraw if wanted, but it seems to have passed muster so far. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In any spare time " any? In his spare time?
    • Yes. I think I may have absorbed the "any" from one of the sources, but it isn't needed. Will remove.

Public school -

  • "and he was shocked at the prevalence of bullying," This article shows uncanny similarities to wikipedia forums! (And later on "inclined to suspect technical brilliance of being superficial and insincere" hehe) Seems a little wordy though, "He did not enjoy his time there. He hated being separated from his family, most particularly from his mother; he despised the music master; and he was shocked at the prevalence of bullying, though he was not the target of it." I'd probably write it as "Britten loathed boarding school; not only was he separated from his family, but he despised the music master and was shocked at the prevalence of bullying, although never affected by it himself."
    • Jingling repetition of bullying/bullied puts me off.
Reworded, better?Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 09:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't include the "esp from his mother" bit, which is very much to the point and needs emphasising. Add that, and the two versions are equally wordy. Tim riley (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Britten was at the RCM from 1930 to 1933, studying composition with Ireland and piano with Arthur Benjamin." "Britten studied composition with Ireland and piano with Arthur Benjamin at the RCM from 1930 to 1933" I'd write it as.
    • College first then teachers seems more logical to me. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early professional life -

  • Coal Face and Night Mail, you might mention that they were documentary films and put the years of the films in brackets to help the reader.
  • I dislike the word "huge", monumental importance?
    • I try to follow the old precept, "Prefer the short word to the long". Not always good advice, but right here, I think.
  • "In the same year " I had to double check the year again looked back, perhaps say "Later in 1937".

America 1939–42 -

  • Link British embassy in Washington?
    • Is anyone likely to click on it? I avoid pointless links whenever I can.
I could say the same about conscientious objectors, Home Secretary, and many others that you've linked in the article!
Fair point. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return to England

  • "always generous in encouraging new talent" I don't generous is the right word here. I'd use the word zealous.
    • His generosity is well documented. I don't know that I have seen it described as "zealous"
  • "Britten had grown away from him, and Auden became one of the composer's so-called "corpses" – former intimates from whom he completely cut off contact once they had outlived their usefulness to him or offended him in some way." Maybe "Britten had grown distant from Auden, who became became one of the composer's so-called "corpses", former intimates he severed all contacts with once they had outgrown their usefulness to him or had offended him in some way."
  • "Peter Grimes opened in June 1945 and was hailed by public and critics" the public and critics?
    • I forget the technical term for this, but it is a normal construction, such as "he was hailed by friend and enemy alike." Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dismayed by the in-fighting among the company ". "Dismayed by belligerence within the company?
    • But does "belligerence" convey the same internecine destructiveness as "in-fighting"? Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "going on to found what was to become the English Opera Group." Perhaps a date of when it did become a group of that name, that would clarify it better I think. You could say the date later on where you say "Britten and his associates set up the English Opera Group".
  • Instruments of the Orchestra. - date of film in brackets as earlier in the article please
  • "while on tour in the new work " in the new work seems strange to me, "while on tour performing the new work" perhaps?
    • The existing version seems natural to me, but happy to change if others prefer TP's version. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aldeburgh -

  • "New works by Britten featured in almost every Festival" not sure the festival needs to be capitalized. If I'm referring say to the Reading Festival I'll refer to it as "I'm going to the festival" rather than "I'm going to The Festival", just a suggestion, not sure you'll agree.
    • We inherited this capitalisation from previous editors. I agree with you (I read The Guardian which is notorious for lower-casing everything in sight) but I didn't feel justified in changing more than necessary in earlier contributors' excellent work purely on the grounds of my personal preference. (There are a few turns of phrase I'm not wild about, too, that I have left untampered with.) As "Festival" has survived PR and all the above reviews without challenge I'm inclined to leave it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but from 1949 to 1951 he had his only private pupil" Not sure "had" is the right word, he didn't give birth to him LOL! Perhaps he "taught his only private pupil".
    • I didn't like "had" when I wrote it, and I don't like it now, but "taught" seems not quite right either. Any other suggestions gratefully entertained. Tim riley (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later: I think I've solved this little point. Now redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covent Garden is linked, I thought I'd already seen it linked earlier in the article, can you check?

Boys -

  • I think "Britten was attracted to young boys – what Auden called "thin-as-a-board juveniles – sexless and innocent" definitely needs a citation as it's a rather serious claim!
    • The citation after the following sentence covers it, but point taken, and I have added another in closer proximity to the quote. Tim riley (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operas -

  • Strauss has already been linked, perhaps intentionally as you say above?

Legacy -

  • "In the decade after Britten's death, his standing as a composer in Britain was to some extent overshadowed by that of the still-living Tippett. " I think this needs a citation as it comes across as a little OR.
    • Added citation for Tippett's rise and Britten's (relative) fall. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honours -

  • "State hours" Typo?
    • Good grief! How many pairs of eyes other than mine have looked straight through my typo? Thank you very much for spotting it. Now corrected. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just as the converted hayloft designed and built by H. T. Cadbury-Brown in 1958 was described by Britten as a "magnificent work", this article is truly a "magnificent work", and if it means anything to the authors I think he'd have said the same thing about this article and would have been highly impressed. This is truly superb work fellas, very impressed at how well you've constructed this, even for men of your superlative abilities. I've made a number of suggestions above, you might not agree with some if indeed many of them, but I hope that you at least find some good points and find my input constructive. I'll entrust you to make the changes you feel are necessary and address my points, knowing your never-ending quest for improvement, and am very pleased to support this fine piece of writing on an important composer.Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 09:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, TP, for your input. As you will see, I have disagreed with many points, but gladly embraced others, to the benefit of the article. Your generous (but not zealous!) expression of support is gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"always generous in encouraging new talent" still doesn't quire strike a chord with me, but we all have our own peculiarities, wouldn't want to alarm the diplomats in Washington...Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 12:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks TP for your thoughtful input. I am entirely happy with Tim's responses. As to your generous praise, please note that 90% of the work was Tim's. I feel something of an interloper here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Behave, BB! Your contributions, made at my request with indecently short notice, are extensive and exceedingly valuable. Not to mention your running repairs to my own additions. While you're here, have you got a better ref than the one I have put in for Tippett's temporary eclipse of Britten? And would you have a swift shufti at Lemonade's point about the circular disambiguation ref? Insoluble, I suspect, but worth checking. – Tim riley (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the matter of Tippett v Britten, all that I wrote in that paragraph up to "the final years of the 20th century" is covered by the Carpenter citation. I don't have the Steinberg source so don't know what it says; if it reinforces the point, by all means leave it in. On the dablink, I'd ditch the hatnote. I think its 99.9% certain that anyone coming to this page wants the Ben article, not something about motor-bikes or odd bods. If they search for "Britten" they will go to the dab page, not here. If you feel for some altruistic reason that some redirect instruction is needed, than you could replace the benighted template with a handmade hatnote: "Britten" redirects here. For other uses, see disambiguation page. But whether it's worth the bother...I don't know. I'll go along with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Only 10% contribution you say? Mmm, perhaps then your collaboration isn't quite enough to disrupt the space-time continuum and make the universe implode. Phew, that was a close call! Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken the hat off. Unwise in this heat, but nothing venture, nothing win. If anyone gets aerated we can use the other BB suggestion as, er, Plan B. Tim riley (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this article satisfies FA criteria. I have contributed to the addition of the early and later life section back in late 2012 and expanded a little bit on the music section. Other than that, I think this article looks good. Keep up the good work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Benjamin_Britten/archive1&oldid=1151014952"